Just check out the 2 cars physics thread for an example.
“Having the other clown admit it” is not a necessary part of winning an argument. Just the opposite, sometimes - it is often easier to come up with the perfect one-liner when you don’t have to worry about being factually refuted.
Some debaters are the equivalent of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Having them look at the gaping hole you just carved in their argument and hearing them mutter “It’s only a flesh wound” is as amusing as the frank admission of defeat, sometimes.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. It had to be done.
Sometimes this imagehelps me walk away or stay out of it. That’s probably a copy of a copy, instead of the original. Unfortunately, I don’t have a link to the original.
I think my personal favorite is the person who can’t admit they were shellacked in an online argument, and decides to cover their retreat by mentioning all the valuable, society-serving tasks they must get to while you are wasting time on the Internet.
Example - the long debate on health quackery I got into years ago in another forum, involving voluminous, link and quote-filled posts on both sides. My opponent’s final, devastating comeback was “You sure must have a lot of time on your hands.” 
The real dumbasses are the people I find it easiest to walk away from. What’s harder to let go are people who have a degree of intelligence but who twist, distort and lie about facts and solid reasoning (including yours) and manage to be such assholes that it’s difficult to avoid slapping them down one more time. And another. And another…
Urgh. Yes. Someone who happens to be a volunteer firefighter in his spare time (which, good for him and all, really) recently led off his rebuttal post with “Now that I am back from saving people’s lives…”
OK, that’s great, but what does it have to do with the topic under discussion?
Damn, someone beat me to it. 
I tend not to get drawn into protracted arguments with people, either in real life or online, but definitely less so online. I did that recently here in the pit and was swiftly reminded why I don’t get spend time in that forum - it was quickly a rude, accusatory mess for everyone, and the complete opposite of what I enjoy spending my time on.
There’s very little I care that much enough about that I really want to argue about it (as opposed to discuss, which is different) and moreover I generally don’t have a high enough opinion of words on a screen (which is what anyone on the net I don’t actually know personally is) to feel I need to convince them of anything. Why does it matter if they think something that I’m clear is logically incorrect, or factually wrong? Why does it matter if they themselves are too stupid or ignorant to form an argument? More importantly, will spending hours of my time talking to them online change that? How do I know that the person I’m talking to even believes what they’re saying and is not a troll?
Whilst there have been discussions I’ve had online where I’ve been convinced my position isn’t correct on something, or has (in the longer term) presented me with information that has caused me to review my opinions on things, I can’t actually think off the top of my head where I’ve been part of a debate where someone has said “you know what? Your logic and well-reasoned argument have changed my mind”. I’d rather invest my time talking to people I know about things we don’t agree on because at least there you have some feedback and know that the person you’re talking to is doing so genuinely, and I know they’re not morons too.
So in short, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to argue with idiots - as soon as I suspect I’m talking to someone who is grossly uninformed (deliberately or not), stupid, irrational or a troll, I disengage from it rather than waste precious energy on a futile exercise. It’s why you won’t catch me talking to anyone in the youtube comments section
I think sometimes it’s just because arguing - heated debates without personal insults - is fun for the sake of it, and if you haven’t got enough good ones going then you let yourself get sucked into the bad ones. Even if they’re people you know you’d never debate this with in real life, because either they’re drooling into their liquor-soaked bristle or they’re strutting around hoping someone will notice their Porsche key-ring.
Or sometimes it’s because they’re someone who’s not always an arsehole. Then either you might think you can change their opinions by the awesome power of your wordage, or you don’t want to back down in a way that seems rude.
IME, backing down in that kind of argument by saying ‘fine, let’s agree to disagree. So, how about them Yankees?’ or something similar works about 50% of the time in that you can still carry on talking about them Yankees and don’t hold the previous argument against each other - much.
The other 50% of the time, it’s hard not to be drawn back in.
I actually readthe entire Sandusky thread up till about three weeks ago. I didn’t post because I had nothing to add. It was not a factually informative thread like some others I might just read. But for some reason I liked seeing the back-and-forth between all posters and a couple of posters then all posters and Starving Artist. It was kinda like one of those plays you get sometimes where there’s no set or props, just people talking. There was even a death!
There’s a line that I repeat to myself now and then. I either read it somewhere or thought it up myself:
Remember, if you’re arguing with someone who is clearly a moron, the best result is that you win an argument with a moron.
I keep my elite idiocy here on the SDMB and DU. I can’t imagine the level of dumb at facebook. It must be painful.
Anyway, never argue with idiots. Those watching can’t tell the difference. One wishes to help the unenlightened face reality, but it is like pushing rope uphill underwater. I blame “that man”.
[Jeremy Irons]Oh, you’ve no idea…[/Jeremy Irons]
I’m currently in mourning for a dog. (Those who haven’t had ‘long-term pets’ especially may see that as glib, those who have know ‘it’s mourning, as real as if it were for a human you loved’.) I’ll admit that the Limbaugh thing has helped me this week because it gets me furious and the nice thing about angry is it takes you out of sadness. The bad thing is I’ve been using .42 hollow points to crush fleas, figuring “If I can’t make them admit they’re wrong I can at least make them suicidal”.
BUT, I can’t imagine that many people had dogs die this week, but everywhere the hostility is just ridiculous. If Facebook were a physical place there’d be street fights breaking out.
I’m sorry for your loss. A long term pet is like a family member that never says an unkind word to you and dances every time you come home.
Good point originally. I wish I had the force of character to spend even less time on the religious and political questions here.
Hey, I just realized the OP wrote “pointless online argument”, a rare triple oxymoron.